Floods and 60 year climatic cycle

Posted: October 21, 2011 by tchannon in climate, Uncategorized

Some time ago I noticed a possible linkage between far eastern floods and a 60 year climate cycle.

I was too unsure this was real so I moved on to other things.

Events today have me wondering again.

The posit I had in mind was the raining out of water after the hot part of a 60 year cycle. I’d been looking at various historic data, including ancient Chinese records. There do seem to be patterns. A proper analysis is not something I felt I wanted to do.

Another factor with this is linked geographic regions. On this there is a basis but this is not something I have researched enough to say anything.

This might also fit with sea level variations but I doubt by much.

Any comments?

Tallbloke is still absent and I am not feeling like producing a lot of posts, although I am slowly preparing something large.

Question: I have been wondering whether enabling the WordPress comment threading would be useful given the nature of this blog. Opinions on threading tend to be strong so any views are welcome.

Comments
  1. Joe Lalonde says:

    There is no actual cycle. Similarities to past events. Yes.
    Every moment is unique in the Universe with the constant expansion and distance changes.
    One area NASA and science failed to look into is the mapping of speed differences from pole to pole. Interesting massive energy differences with the change of speeds.

  2. adolfogiurfa says:

    @tchannon: There is a 55-60 year cycle, related to LOD (length of the day) and to “Atmospheric
    Circulation Index” in a study from FAO by Professor
    Leonid B. Klyashtorin of the Federal Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography, Moscow, Russian
    Federation (e-mail: Klyashtorin at mtu-net.ru)
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
    (See graph at page 50th)
    Nicola Scafetta has found a similar cycle:
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
    It is useful to see the relations with the GMF: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC.htm
    And, last but not least, how and why does the earth spin:

    A question nobody in consensus science can answer.

  3. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Tim; due to commentors tendency to wander from the topic, I doubt comment threading would be of great value. ” If something is working, don’t fix it.”

    As to climate cycling, It appears to me that we have cycling of dry to wet and cool to warm over about 60 years. ( 56 to 63) Any study of weather data that uses less then 60 years of data to tease out “climate change” is a fools errand. Of course I have only been farming for 60 years and may need a few more years experience. 😎 pg

  4. tchannon says:

    In no particular order

    adolfo, guessing from the comments and your interest what the video shows, some kind of electrickery. There is no need. Any unevenness in an agglomerating mass will ballerina produce a spin. Then there are the strange effects to do with a formed solar system where there are integer rules about spin, far from played out yet. Whether we actually know what happened is another matter.

    adolfo, you’ve pulled up some very nice PDF. Fishing is an ancient practice with one of the longest histories, including bones and goodness knows what else. I’d forgotten about this one.

    PG, given the fish subject, farming, some curious parallels, presumably without the husbandry of a shared range, neither can you move if conditions move.

    Joe, very likely it is chaotic yet constraints can cause cyclic behaviour, including modal switches. All the time there are also strong cyclic components, with only day and year definite.

  5. tchannon says:

    Brian, yes, someone emailed me but you’ve indicated some later comments.

    Lets go off topic.

    I don’t inhabit Curry’s. There is good reason.

    The comments you cited and the article itself are incomplete, it is Nyquist and Shannon, the latter not getting mentioned. There are other additions too. Yes it’s right that barely any “get it”. Statistics dominates science but is the wrong math.

    I go much further than those there who use the stuff in their work. I spent 15 years seeing the transition from analogue to digital representation. I worked in commerce on professional broadcast audio and also embedded instrumentation which I introduced to many companies. All of you have heard (not) things where I was involved, international business. In that context I was a design engineer. When the world moved on, commodity, I moved more to contracting on a variety of things.

    I’ve forgotten plenty nor do I claim to be a DSP expert, I do though know a few things.

    One of the cited mentions seismic. This deals in low frequency but very high dynamic range (usually handled by very high resolution), lot of good work but specialised. Apt development is handling aliased data, sparse data and so on. Steve Mcintyre will have come across these people but I’ve not seen sign he touched signals.

    Out of curiosity I checked what is around today, Oddly things have not moved on. Plenty talking tripe about 16 bit, you are kidding. This is stable old production
    http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/cs5373a.html

    One of the last things I was doing, company ran out before it went to prototype needed >-130dBm noise floor, extremely tough given variable gain. Equivalent to not many ohms of resistor noise and yet the thing has to survive mains up the input. (or you get service costs)

    Let you into part of the strange world. I could have had music playing, you walked in and did not comment. The music was below the quantisation level. Intuitively this is ridiculous but if things are correct Shannon offers a clue. Is about bandwidth and the human brain tolerates some noise without noticing. The actual signal is fine. The key is dither, the addition of noise when necessary. This is a magic ingredient which and using a dual (simile) has the same effect as a flow of water through a bed of sand (the normally stuck data bits) with the effect of fluidisation and you have quicksand, which acts as a liquid. For this reason correct digitisation contains accurate data below the notional quantisation level. If there is a tone at -120dB below signal on a 16 bit system (96dB) a filter will remove the noise (Shannon) and there is the tone.
    The trivial way to do this is feed 0.5 of a bit random noise at the correct point into an A/D converter, magic, and sometimes for intermediate processing, avoided. Add noise to reduce garbage.

    Used similar things to tare a strain gauge when only an 8 bit converter is used, works provided the A/D is monotonic. You can have say 0.123 bit tare offset. Get that zero flicker.

    Uh huh, annual data with one data point and to a tenth? A joke. Should be three data points and to many digits. Given the bad underlying data, maybe not.

  6. Joe Lalonde says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    And, last but not least, how and why does the earth spin:

    A question nobody in consensus science can answer.

    I can answer that.
    The sun is the re-enforcing factor.
    Coincidence is how many planets rotate virtually the same speed except for the first two.
    We look at the rotation of the sun by the corona and not by the outer core.
    Mapping the rotational speed of the sun can show how much greater the energy at the equator to the poles. 10 times the difference in speed and mass.

  7. a.batty says:

    earth spins due to interaction with moon and sun,moon is trying to get away from climate change